Israel's attack on the USS Liberty...

[gumboot]

Where I disagree with you is that you seem to see the incident as evidence of anti-Israel attitude. Perhaps that is an underlying bias of some of the people that believe the story, but given the strength of evidence that it was an intentional attack I don't think that an anti-Israel bias is necessary to believe that the attack was intentional.

Isn't the issue how the attack is USED?

If we take dear Alex Jones, creator of "TerrorStorm", he uses the attack as an example of a "False Flag Terror Op" orchestrated by the US Government against its own citizens.

Even assuming nefarious purposes, I really don't see that this attack is an example of a false flag terror operation against the US people. Alex Jones is USING this event to further other goals.

Likewise, those of an Anti-Israeli persuasion will use the Liberty attack to further their own goals.

-Gumboot

 

[davefoc]

gumboot,
After I finished my post, I thought about what Sabra was saying a bit more and I think he was at least partially right. I edited my post at the end to say that.

And I think you are right also, generally when the attack is brought up today it is by people who disagree to some extent with the US subsidy of Israel or Israeli actions with regard to the Palestinians.

 

[gumboot]

gumboot,
After I finished my post, I thought about what Sabra was saying a bit more and I think he was at least partially right. I edited my post at the end to say that.

And I think you are right also, generally when the attack is brought up today it is by people who disagree to some extent with the US subsidy of Israel or Israeli actions with regard to the Palestinians.

Yes I spotted that.

I think the problem is the same reverse bias occurs - that being people who express an opinion that the attack was deliberate often get accused of being anti-semitic even if they aren't.

-Gumboot

 

[zenith-nadir]

How many Americans did those evil Israelis kill again?

-Gumboot

34.

Sabra,
It is hard for me to believe that you can not understand my point.

The killing of the Canadian soldiers in a friendly fire incident was very sad. I was personally shaken by it. It has been a while since I have read about it but my recollection is that American commanders deserved some of the blame for the incident. However, there never has been a charge nor do I think there is any evidence that the US government ordered the attack.

Yet with technology 35 years more advanced than Israel's 1967 technology friendly fire incidents still happen.

The Liberty ship attack is quite different in that regard. The ship itself looked nothing like an Egyptian ship, the attack extended over a long period of time and the American sailors claimed that a large American flag was displayed on the ship. In addition, the American investigation after the incident was clearly a sham investigation.

That all may be true. But it happened 40 years ago and has no bearing on Israeli relations or intentions in 2006. Yet it is still used as "evidence" of Israeli maliciousness.

All of this adds up to a reasonable case that in fact some contingent of the Israeli government ordered a strike on the Liberty ship that they knew to be American. So one doesn't need to be anti-Israel, or an anti-semite to believe that in fact Israel did order the attack.

Yet to date, no one has ever provided the person who gave the conspiracy theory's "order to attack".

...but given the strength of evidence that it was an intentional attack I don't think that an anti-Israel bias is necessary to believe that the attack was intentional.

There were ten official American investigations, and three Israeli investigations (cite). So the conspiracy theorists want everyone to believe that all thirteen investigations MUST BE wrong and they, the conspiracy theorists, are right.

ETA: Although after thinking about it a bit more, I would agree with you that the fact that it continues to be brought up after all these years is mostly because of anti-Israel sentiment.

It is. And that is my point with the Maj. Harry Schmidt incident. I could bring that up 40 years from now but what would it really prove? Nothing.

 

[The Painter]

Wow, for such a crowd of intellectuals and critical thinkers, there are a lot of anti-Semites here.

If there were a button you could push to eliminate every Jew on the planet, would you push it? Be honest, would you?

 

[Cain]

I never understood the fuss over this incident. The interesting thing about 9/11 conspiracy theorists is their racist assumption about Arabs living in caves could not possibly successfully attack the all-powerful United States, and how the military, NORAD, etc., suspiciously failed to properly react given their super-duper technology. The government is supposed to be almost omniscient, including our shamefully boobish one at the present time.

The attack on the USS Liberty is built up as an almost holy crime because "the troops" are involved, and this is supposed to show how evil, underhanded, and untrustworthy Israel is. But of course in any given year the Israeli occupation results in far more atrocities, nearly all of which are a forseeable consequence of a conscious long-standing policy decision to inflict terror and upon the Palestinians.

What the incident shows, in my view, is the all-too cozy relationship between the U.S. and Israel. Assuming the same circumstances and any other country, there would have been a tremendous outrage, investigations, and reprisal bombings if the perpetrators were non-white. Here's a piece on the episode from my man Jeffrey St. Clair (co-editor of my favorite anti-Israel publication): http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair1126.html

I've never heard the side who believes Israel did not intend to attack respond to this bit of testimony:

More proof has recently come to light from the Israeli side. A few years after Attack on the Liberty was originally published, Ennes got a call from Evan Toni, an Israeli pilot. Toni told Ennes that he had just read his book and wanted to tell him his story. Toni said that he was the pilot in the first Israeli Mirage fighter to reach the Liberty. He immediately recognized the ship to be a US Navy vessel. He radioed Israeli air command with this information and asked for instructions. Toni said he was ordered to "attack." He refused and flew back to the air base at Ashdod. When he arrived he was summarily arrested for disobeying orders.

Is this guy just a nutter who might as well claim he killed JFK?

 

[Darth Rotor]

The attack on the USS Liberty is built up as an almost holy crime because "the troops" are involved, and this is supposed to show how evil, underhanded, and untrustworthy Israel is. But of course in any given year the Israeli occupation results in far more atrocities, nearly all of which are a forseeable consequence of a conscious long-standing policy decision to inflict terror and upon the Palestinians.

Have you read Ennes' book?

The most important thing, IMO, that Israel did, deliberate or not, was admit culpability, and pay reparations. As far as I am concerned, that was an act of good faith. So to, Sabra, the official regret by the US government on the Command and Control/Communications failures that led to the Canadian Forces being hit with a bomb intended for Taliban, in a case of error.

Concerning the remarks of one of the IDF pilots, whose remarks were then retracted, it doesn't help anything other than to feed the speculations that the truth of the matter was never fully examined.

Skeptic, I am sorry, but the post hoc "declassified" documents aren't going to make me feel any better. I have a dog in this fight, as a career Navy Officer who had the opportunity to serve on the gun line off of Beirut, eraly 1980's. Our guidance was pretty simple regarding the IAF jets who would now and again do over the water surveillance patrols. The Israeli planes were not to be treated as friendlies. The Israelis were, and are, assessed as stictly "on their own side." Makes sense to me, a sort of bunker mentality, given the geostrategic situation.

DR

 

[zenith-nadir]

Concerning the remarks of one of the IDF pilots, whose remarks were then retracted, it doesn't help anything other than to feed the speculations that the truth of the matter was never fully examined.

DR

There was a total of thirteen investigations, (cite). Israel did pay reparations to the United States. Yet, the USS Liberty is still a favorite "see-I-told-ya-Israel-is-bad-news" meme 40 years after-the-fact.

So to, Sabra, the official regret by the US government on the Command and Control/Communications failures that led to the Canadian Forces being hit with a bomb intended for Taliban, in a case of error.

DR

When the Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 the Americans said they had mistakenly identified an Airbus A300 for an attacking military fighter. A top-of-the-line AEGIS warship couldn't tell a difference between a fighter and an Airbus.

I guess in 2028 I should be able to bring up the USS Vincennes incident... then go "see-I-told-ya-America-is-bad-news."

 

[Darth Rotor]

There was a total of thirteen investigations, (cite). Israel did pay reparations to the United States. Yet, the USS Liberty is still a favorite "see-I-told-ya-Israel-is-bad-news" meme 40 years after-the-fact.

When the Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 the Americans said they had mistakenly identified an Airbus A300 for an attacking military fighter. A top-of-the-line AEGIS warship couldn't tell a difference between a fighter and an Airbus.

Not fighter, aircraft.

Tell ya what, smart guy, you tell me how to visually identify a plane with a SPY-1 radar, and I'll give you a beer. It is not a synthetic aperture rader. It sends back blips.

That said, a lot of people in the US Navy felt that Captain Rogers decisions could have been better, and contributed to an engagement that was in error. Of course, one year prior, USS Stark had been hit.

Tell me, again, what attacks US forces made on Israel Forces in the year before the Liberty (1966) that influenced the Command and Control decisions to permit the engagement on that ship by planes and torpedo patrol boats?

DR

 

[JamesM]

I've never heard the side who believes Israel did not intend to attack respond to this bit of testimony

There is no 'Evan Toni'. Jim Ennes says that the man's name was "Evan Tov AKA Tovni". A Jay Cristol, in his book on the Liberty incident, refers to him as 'Amnon Tavni'.

However his name is spelt, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that he was in the IAF and no-one has been able to track him down.

See this thread at the Liberty forum. Jim Ennes weighs in on page 2.

Bottom line: much like a lot of the 'evidence', if you think the attack was deliberate, this is another piece of the puzzle. If you don't, this is just another unsubstantiated story.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Not fighter, aircraft.

DR

"According to U.S. government accounts, the Vincennes mistakenly identified the Iranian aircraft as an attacking military fighter." (cite)

"The commanding officer of the Sides, who was in the CIC at the time, believed it was an F-14, because he said he did not dispute the fact that it was an F-14 when the Vincennes made that call." (cite)

Tell ya what, smart guy, you tell me how to visually identify a plane with a SPY-1 radar, and I'll give you a beer. It is not a synthetic aperture rader. It sends back blips.

DR

I am no expert in SPY radar systems, hell, I've never even seen one, I do know that the transponder on the Airbus was operational. I also can cite the testimony of Admiral Fogarty to verify that it was operational.

Senator Levin. And the person who jumped up and said “possible commercial air” or “possible com air” at 6:51, what was the basis of his statement?
Admiral Fogarty. He did not jump up, sir. He was actually behind the commanding officer, looking over at the consoles the commanding officer and the tactical action officer had.
Senator Levin. I am reading. It says he jumped up. Your report says he jumped up.
Admiral Fogarty. Then my report is wrong. He did not jump up. He was standing at the time. So it was not “Jump.” I will have to correct that.
He was standing behind the commanding officer at the time and looking over his shoulder and seeing the CRO, which is the readout we described in the briefing, that showed an increasing altitude and a Mode III readout, which means civilian airliner. That was the basis upon which he made his call of “commercial air.”

I also know that A) the Airbus transponder was squawking Mode III, code 6760 continuously, testimony from the USS Sides corroborate the flight path and the Mode III IFF squawk, and B) attempts to contact Iran Air 655 were sent on the wrong frequency and addressed to a non-existent Iranian F-14.

That said, a lot of people in the US Navy felt that Captain Rogers decisions could have been better, and contributed to an engagement that was in error. Of course, one year prior, USS Stark had been hit.

DR

And at the time the Liberty was hit it was 12.5nm off the coast during the Six Day War. There were no state-of-the-art AEGIS weapon systems or transponders.

Tell me, again, what attacks US forces made on Israel Forces in the year before the Liberty (1966) that influenced the Command and Control decisions to permit the engagement on that ship by planes and torpedo patrol boats?

DR

I dunno what influenced anyone 40 years ago. Frankly I don't care, it was 40 years ago. Time to put some closure on it. Now as a Canadian when an American F16 bombed part of our 3rd Battalion Battle Group I was pissed. But I let it go, #$%@ happens, I put closure on it.

So when I hear people bring up the Liberty 40 years after-the-fact, and then start to get upset about it, I shake my head and wonder why the hell they are so personally invested into a small event from way back in 1967.

However his name is spelt, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that he was in the IAF and no-one has been able to track him down.

See this thread at the Liberty forum. Jim Ennes weighs in on page 2.

Here's what Jim Ennes says:

"There is the obvious suspicion that he invented the whole story to try to stay out of jail. The man's claim has never been verified, documented or refuted."

Yet Evan Tov AKA Tovni is part of the USS Liberty mythology... "the pilot who recognized the ship as American" is quoted in Cain's post quoting from counterpunch. The USS Liberty legend lives on!

I've never heard the side who believes Israel did not intend to attack respond to this bit of testimony:

Well there's an example of Cain quoting counterpunch and Jeffrey St. Clair who make a claim that Ennes has the "smoking gun!" A pilot named Evan Toni. Well JamesM was kind enough to provide Jim Ennes's own testimony. Jim Ennes's never verified or documented the claims of the so-called smoking gun Israeli pilot who Cain and counterpunch quote as A) real, and B) truthful.

Ahhhh, skepticism at it's finest.

 

[davefoc]

What exactly is your point Sabra?

That the only reason a person might conclude that the attack on the Liberty was an intentional act of the Israeli government is that they are some combination of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic?

Your main argument in favor of that, IMHO, (and I realize we probably won't agree on this), is just plain bogus. The vast majority of friendly fire incidents including the ones you mentioned are believed to have been accidents. There is no case to be made for any of these that I am aware of that any government expressly ordered an attack on their own or allied soldiers or civilians in the case of the Iranian jet liner.

This means that your use of these incidents as a comparison with the Liberty ship incident for the purposes you intend is just plain wrong. The Liberty ship incident is almost unique in friendly fire incidents in that it involved errors that were so apparently egregious that even in the face of the fact that there was no obvious motive for them it was hard to believe that the attack was not intentionally directed at the Americans.

To repeat what I said above, I think there is something to your point that the incident continues to be brought up at least partially by people who disagree with the American subsidy of Israel as an argument against that subsidy. There is probably something to your point that the incident continues to be brought up because of anti-semitism.

Where we disagree and will continue to disagree, I suspect, is that I think there are large numbers of people who believe the attack was intentionally aimed at an American ship who are not motivated by anti-Israel or anti-semitic feelings and you don't.

 

[zenith-nadir]

What exactly is your point Sabra?

That the USS Liberty has been artificially kept alive long past it's due date.

That the only reason a person might conclude that the attack on the Liberty was an intentional act of the Israeli government is that they are some combination of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic?

That would be a strawman.

Your main argument in favor of that, IMHO, (and I realize we probably won't agree on this), is just plain bogus.

I never once used the term anti-Semitic. Although I do feel that the USS Liberty is often quoted by elements who are interested in more than just honoring the dead sailors.

The vast majority of friendly fire incidents including the ones you mentioned are believed to have been accidents. There is no case to be made for any of these that I am aware of that any government expressly ordered an attack on their own or allied soldiers or civilians in the case of the Iranian jet liner.

So when Americans blow up Canadian soldiers and Iranian airliners it's "an accident". When Israel hit the Liberty it's "a war crime." I get it.

This means that your use of these incidents as a comparison with the Liberty ship incident for the purposes you intend is just plain wrong. The Liberty ship incident is almost unique in friendly fire incidents in that it involved errors that were so apparently egregious that even in the face of the fact that there was no obvious motive for them it was hard to believe that the attack was not intentionally directed at the Americans.

So what? Really? What is your personal investment into the USS Liberty? Without looking it up on the internet can you name any three of the thirty four sailors who died? The Israeli pilots and officers on duty that day in 1967 are long and gone. So why, 40 years later, are people still pining over the USS Liberty.

To repeat what I said above, I think there is something to your point that the incident continues to be brought up at least partially by people who disagree with the American subsidy of Israel as an argument against that subsidy. There is probably something to your point that the incident continues to be brought up because of anti-semitism.

I have never once used the term anti-semitism.

Where we disagree and will continue to disagree, I suspect, is that I think there are large numbers of people who believe the attack was intentionally aimed at an American ship who are not motivated by anti-Israel or anti-semitic feelings and you don't.

The attack was on an intelligence-gathering ship 12 miles offshore during the Six Day War. Why folks can't find "closure" even after Israel made reparations and thirteen separate investigations boggles my mind.

The My Lai Massacre and coverup doesn't "prove" America is all bad just like the USS Liberty doesn't prove Israel is all bad. But generally that is what the USS Liberty is used for.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ahhhh, skepticism at it's finest.

There's irony for you, IDF apologist.

Smart guy, what else was the USS Vincennes involved in when the Iranian plane got shot down? Talk to me.

I am very familiar with the commentary of the CO of the USS Sides, read his article in USNI Proceedings the month it came out. This was the captain of a ship that was of the class called by much of the fleet "Helen Keller," (Sides was a FFG 7) and whose track quality in the NTDS AAW link was in those days low quality at best. CORT wasn't even a wet dream then.

Transponder spoofing is a way to attempt to mask one's identity. I used to do it in fleet exercises all the time, when I got to play Orange forces.

Do you assume your enemy to be stupid, or sly? Me, I was raised with a simple rule in a war zone: squawk or die. The Iranian pilots were repeatedly hailed, and chose to ignore the hail of an armed warship in a war zone.

Freaking arrogant morons. Consider the amount of time OS's on tracker alley hailed that aircraft over IAD frequency. To put this in perspective, in 2004 a tanker with a couple of US jets were aerial refueling over eastern Iraq. To avoid a thunderhead, the tanker pilot kept cheating eastward. He ended up either violating, or almost violating, Iranian air space. Iranian air defense hailed him. He got the eff out of there. (IIRC< Rummy was two days later apologizing to Iran publicly for the infringement of their sovereign air space.) One can be smart and not fired upon, or stupid and risk being fired upon.

The above considered, Captain Rogers was, when all is said and done, quick on the trigger. The CO of the Stark got hammered, Rogers not so much. I didn't give a flying fruitbat that a few hundred rag heads were dead. There was a war on in the Persian Gulf back then. US forces had been involved in a number of engagements with the Iranians, to include some scraps on oil platforms in the Gulf. US was reflagging Kuwaiti ships and convoying them out of the Gulf to keep the international oil stable. Why? The Iranian decision to put the squeeze on oil tankers by attacking them during the Iran Iraq war.

But please, tell me again, what hostile actions had the US taken in 1966, in the year before Israel chose to attack a US ship? (Or, if you prefer, accidentally attacked a US ship. One could argue that an Israeli flight leader was worried about a false flag operation in the case of USS Liberty.)

In 1988, that last thing that was going to cause me to lose sleep was anyone devoutly Muslim (ever hear of a thing called the Islamic revolution?) dying. Shi'ite Muslims were behind significant terror activites against US all over the Middle East. The important fact was, in a dubious engagement in the Persian Gulf, which was an on and off war zone, that no Americans died. Had USS Stark not happened the previous year . . . who knows what the political motivation would have been to hang Captain Rogers as an example? I'll argue that without Stark, Rogers would have been a sacrificial lamb. With Stark as a context, he was allowed some slack.

Works for me.

Me, I don't consider Israel evil. Israel is. What I consider less than worthy is the matter of cover ups. Sort of like the Nixon deal: what's worse, the crime or the cover up? Heck, ask Martha Stewart.

DR

 

[Dr Adequate]

Israel's motive was to create an international incident, kill every American on board so there would be no witnesses, and blame the incident on Arabs.

However, what with all the exitement they completely forgot that this was their plan. In particular, they forgot to do the bit where they "kill every American on board so there would be no witnesses, and blame the incident on Arabs". The big Semitic silly-billies. They also forgot that a warship has radio equipment, so that the attack would be reported whether or not there were surviving witnesses; and they forgot to paint over the big Star of David symbol on the planes by which the US sailors recognized them as Israelis.

If Evil Jews weren't so absent-minded, I bet they'd be running the world by now.

 

[Skeptic]

Skeptic, I am sorry, but the post hoc "declassified" documents aren't going to make me feel any better.

But that's not the point; the point is not was that the attack was a good thing. The point it: was it a deliberate attempt to kill Americans? The answer is no. It was a case, as we now know for sure, of mistaken identification.

The attack on the USS Liberty is built up as an almost holy crime because "the troops" are involved, and this is supposed to show how evil, underhanded, and untrustworthy Israel is. But of course in any given year the Israeli occupation results in far more atrocities

And, also of course, the PLO, Hamas, and other of the Palestinian "Freedom Fighters" had killed--deliberately--literally hundreds of Americans, yet some fools still think that they are somehow in the right.

Of course, those Americans, like the wheelchair-bound Klinghoffer who was thrown overboard by PLO terorists who took over a ship full of Americans, were just Jews, so I guess they don't count as real Americans.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Smart guy, what else was the USS Vincennes involved in when the Iranian plane got shot down? Talk to me.

DR

Irrelevant. A state-of-the-art top-of-the-line billion-dollar warship couldn't tell the difference between an airliner and a hostile threat.

Transponder spoofing is a way to attempt to mask one's identity. I used to do it in fleet exercises all the time, when I got to play Orange forces.

DR

So that is the reason for shooting down an airliner? It could've been an Iranian fighter faking it was an airliner? Sorry but none of the data recorders reported any IFF response other than Mode III, Code 6760 yet the Vincennes continued to consistently misreport the signal.

Do you assume your enemy to be stupid, or sly? Me, I was raised with a simple rule in a war zone: squawk or die. The Iranian pilots were repeatedly hailed, and chose to ignore the hail of an armed warship in a war zone.

DR

The Iranian pilots NEVER HEARD THE CALLS as the Americans were hailing a commercial airliner on the wrong frequencies.

"The Vincennes at that time had no equipment suitable for monitoring civil aviation frequencies, other than the International Air Distress frequency. " (cite)

Freaking arrogant morons. Consider the amount of time OS's on tracker alley hailed that aircraft over IAD frequency.

DR

Well if you know anything about flying an aircraft the pilots of flight 655 were not monitoring the International Air Distress frequency. It was business as usual as the Iranian aircraft was climbing to cruising altitude, it was communicating with Bandar Abbas Control. Had the Vincennes tried to call the airliner on the Bandar Abbas Control frequency... well that is asking too much.

I didn't give a flying fruitbat that a few hundred rag heads were dead. There was a war on in the Persian Gulf back then. US forces had been involved in a number of engagements with the Iranians, to include some scraps on oil platforms in the Gulf.

DR

And my guess is at the time the Israelis didn't give a flying fruitbat that the USS Liberty was hit. There was a war on in the Persian Gulf back then. How you like them apples?

But please, tell me again, what hostile actions had the US taken in 1966, in the year before Israel chose to attack a US ship? (Or, if you prefer, accidentally attacked a US ship. One could argue that an Israeli flight leader was worried about a false flag operation in the case of USS Liberty.)

DR

Egyptian and Russian ships were known to operate under false flags. Unknown to the Israelis, the Liberty had sailed into the war zone on June 8. It was 12 miles off the coast gathering intelligence when it got hit. Time to let it go. Time to put closure on it. Like I've said before most of the people who bring up the USS Liberty couldn't name one sailor who died that day. It is generally brought up in order to question support of Israel.

Had USS Stark not happened the previous year . . . who knows what the political motivation would have been to hang Captain Rogers as an example? I'll argue that without Stark, Rogers would have been a sacrificial lamb. With Stark as a context, he was allowed some slack.

DR

Allowed some slack? The crew of the Vincennes received combat-action ribbons for shooting down an airliner full of civilians!

There's irony for you, IDF apologist.

DR

I am not an apologist. I am not saying firing on the Liberty was right. All I am saying is it's time to let it go. Time to stop using an event from 40 years ago as the basis for "1001 reasons Israel is evil." America makes mistakes too ya know.

 

[Cain]

Well there's an example of Cain quoting counterpunch and Jeffrey St. Clair who make a claim that Ennes has the "smoking gun!" A pilot named Evan Toni. Well JamesM was kind enough to provide Jim Ennes's own testimony. Jim Ennes's never verified or documented the claims of the so-called smoking gun Israeli pilot who Cain and counterpunch quote as A) real, and B) truthful.

Ahhhh, skepticism at it's finest.

Well, well, well, you're about as sharp as a waterballoon. Please, please, please quote exactly where I, Cain, describe this source as "real" and "truthful"? Oh, and feel free to overlook, you know, the parts where I make no such claim, and go ahead and fabricate the "smoking gun" line, excise my question, etc.

And, also of course, the PLO, Hamas, and other of the Palestinian "Freedom Fighters" had killed--deliberately--literally hundreds of Americans, yet some fools still think that they are somehow in the right.

Yeah, now that I think about it you're right: Palestinians... ahem, sorry. "Palestinians" -- all of'em deserve to be slowly exterminated.

Of course, those Americans, like the wheelchair-bound Klinghoffer who was thrown overboard by PLO terorists who took over a ship full of Americans, were just Jews, so I guess they don't count as real Americans.

Who cares if they were 'mericans, or not? Why is being American important (outside of the nagging fact that the America enables Israel's immoral policy of occupation -- just as Israel aided S. Africa's Apartheid regime). I guess the difference is that Israel "deliberately" intends to drop bombs on old men in wheelchairs, and when half a dozen children are blown to smitherens in the process, it's a blame-free accident.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Well, well, well, you're about as sharp as a waterballoon.

An ad Hom. Nice opening.

Please, please, please quote exactly where I, Cain, describe this source as "real" and "truthful"? Oh, and feel free to overlook, you know, the parts where I make no such claim, and go ahead and fabricate the "smoking gun" line, excise my question, etc.

I'd love to. You wrote, and I quote:

I've never heard the side who believes Israel did not intend to attack respond to this bit of testimony:

The "testimony" you refer to is from an October 2003 article in Counterpunch by Jeffery St. Clair. You highlighted and quoted:

Ennes got a call from Evan Toni, an Israeli pilot. Toni told Ennes that he had just read his book and wanted to tell him his story. Toni said that he was the pilot in the first Israeli Mirage fighter to reach the Liberty. He immediately recognized the ship to be a US Navy vessel. He radioed Israeli air command with this information and asked for instructions. Toni said he was ordered to "attack." He refused and flew back to the air base at Ashdod. When he arrived he was summarily arrested for disobeying orders.

I cannot believe that you would post "testimony" to prove your own point if it was "unreal" and "untruthful." That just doesn't make any sense. Ergo, you quoted Counterpunch because you thought is was "real" and "truthful", and you thought it was a smoking gun, an Israeli pilot who admits everything!

It was documented to be false.

JamesM linked to Jim Ennes's own posts on the Liberty forum and Jim Ennes admits that:

"The man's claim has never been verified, documented or refuted."

So what kind of skeptic relies on claims that have never been verified, documented or refuted? Yet represents such claims as factual testimony? I'll tell you who did, you did Cain. See when it comes to hating Israel anything is believable.

Yeah, now that I think about it you're right: Palestinians... ahem, sorry. "Palestinians" -- all of'em deserve to be slowly exterminated.

Now we've made the leap from debunking your so-called "testimony" to a big fat wet strawman about exterminating Palestinians. An ad hom, to false "testimony" to strawmen. At this point I ring the bell and get off the crazy bus.

 

[Cain]

An ad Hom. Nice opening.

It's not ad hominem. Here we go with a major red flag on JREF school to debate. We see it again, with the invokation of the "straw man." As I've said time and time again, from years of experience on this forum, when members mistakenly refer to these fallacies, they're in trouble.

Let us also forget this question:
"Is this guy just a nutter who might as well claim he killed JFK?" It was a serious, honest question. I saw James' post afterward and I was going to thank him for providing the information, but I did not have enough time. I didn't know. I was looking for an alternative point of view (which is sort of why I described _Counterpunch_ as my favorite "anti-Israel" website, indicating their entrenched perspective). I thought this was relatively clear from the general approach of my post as far as this "non-incident" goes, and military screwups in general.

I'd love to. You wrote, and I quote:

The "testimony" you refer to is from an October 2003 article in Counterpunch by Jeffery St. Clair. You highlighted and quoted:

I cannot believe that you would post "testimony" to prove your own point if it was "unreal" and "untruthful." That just doesn't make any sense. Ergo, you quoted Counterpunch because you thought is was "real" and "truthful", and you thought it was a smoking gun, an Israeli pilot who admits everything!

It was documented to be false.

JamesM linked to Jim Ennes's own posts on the Liberty forum and Jim Ennes admits that:

"The man's claim has never been verified, documented or refuted." [/quote]

Since you apparently never understood anything I wrote, assuming the worst, I don't think my waterballoon crack is all that outlandish.

So what kind of skeptic relies on claims that have never been verified, documented or refuted? Yet represents such claims as factual testimony? I'll tell you who did, you did Cain. See when it comes to hating Israel anything is believable.

Heh, if I believed any of this to the degree that you claim -- and I can authortiatively verify that I do not -- then I would unambiguously believe Israel purposely attacked the USS Liberty. But I don't. What's hilarious is that you're just jumping to conclusions, making unsupported assumptions about the assumptions of those evil Israel-haters.

Now we've made the leap from debunking your so-called "testimony"

Yes, we certainly have made something of a leap!

to a big fat wet strawman

Straw man. Sure!

about exterminating Palestinians. An ad hom, to false "testimony" to strawmen. At this point I ring the bell and get off the crazy bus.

I love this crap, especially the people who then spew nonsense about their own personal committment to "skepticism." If you want my point of view, I'm inclined to agree with Dave's sentiments (with the belief that if I had to bet it was NOT intentional). But the "Israel-can-do-no-wrong" crowd takes matters much further, and the implausible becomes inconceivable. In the final analysis, as I've said, it doesn't matter because the agreed upon facts convincingly demonstrate the U.S.'s cozy (or "unskeptical", if you prefer) relationship with Israel and, in terms of the larger conflict, far greater (and calculated) atrocities committed by Israel (overwhelmingly against Palestinians). But your inept ode to skepticism ignores these more relevant facts.